Central Information Commission
Kumar Shashikant vs Department Of Posts on 26 November, 2020
CIC/POSTS/A/2018/637380
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2018/637380
In the matter of:
Kumar Shasikant ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi - 110 001
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 04.10.2018 FA : 02.11.2018 SA : 27.12.2018
CPIO : 02.11.2018 FAO : 13.12.2018 Hearing : 24.11.2020
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Kumar Shasikant, heard through video conferencing.
Respondent: Shri Pradeep Mehlawat, ADG (Admin.), Department of Posts, New
Delhi, heard over the phone.
Page 1 of 8
CIC/POSTS/A/2018/637380
ORDER
Information Sought:
The appellant filed an RTI application on 04.10.2018 seeking information on two points pertaining to the LDCE Exam for AAO - 2018 dated 01.10.2018 for which the appellant appeared with Roll No. was 1113053, including;
1) A copy of answer sheets of all 06 papers may kindly be supplied to appellant.
2) Answer keys of all 06 papers, prepared by Department for evaluation of the Answer Sheets may also be supplied to appellant.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 02.11.2018, referred to the jugdement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar, Feb 2018, Civil Appeal No(s). 6159-6162 of 2013 and denied information on point no. 1 to the appellant. With respect to point no. 2, CPIO stated that no such information was available in their office. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 02.11.2018. FAA, vide order dated 13.12.2018, upheld the CPIO's reply.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The appellant filed second appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant reiterated the background of the case and submitted that although he cleared the departmental exam held by respondent public authority for the post of AAO and was also selected and promoted, the marks scored by him in objective Page 2 of 8 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/637380 examination (one exam out of total 6 exams held) were lower than expected thereby compelling him to file the instant RTI application to verify his examination paper. He further referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court jugdement in the matter of UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar, as quoted by the CPIO in his reply dated 02.11.2018 and stated that the said decision specifically applies to Civil Service examination and is not applicable to departmental exams which are completely at a separate footing to the UPSC exams. He further made a reference to the decision dated 08.06.2018 passed by Hon'ble CIC in the matter of Shailendra Kumar Singh vs. PIO, EPFO wherein the Hon'ble Information Commissioner had directed the respondent to furnish answer sheets of four co-employees of appellant who had qualified the exam. With respect to the information sought vide point no. 2, the appellant submitted that the respondent instead of transferring the RTI application to the concerned division, merely stated that the information sought for is not available in their office. He further alleged that his answer sheet was mixed with that of another candidate and therefore, in order to clarify if the appellant's own answer sheet was evaluated, he requested the Commission to direct the respondent to either furnish due information or offer him inspection of his answer sheet.
The written submissions dated 06.11.2020 filed by the appellant were taken on record.
The respondent reiterated the contents of CPIO's reply and submitted that although the decision passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar discusses the procedure adopted in UPSC examination, the essence of the judgement is applicable to other exams as well. He further submitted that respondent public authority conducts departmental exams on regular basis and if every candidate is allowed to question the evaluation scheme for the reason of Page 3 of 8 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/637380 scoring 4-5 marks lower than expected, there will be never ending litigation. Furthermore, identity of the independent examiners, specifically appointed for promoting fair evaluation, will also be disclosed thereby resulting in their backing- out of such exams in future. With respect to the answer key sought vide point no. 2, the respondent submitted that due to multiple litigations, the selection process has not yet completed and as per the decision of the Committee formed for the purpose of this particular exam, the answer keys will be made available in public domain on closure of the aforesaid selection process. In response to a query, the respondent submitted that the appellant cannot be offered inspection at this stage as the selection process is still ongoing.
The written submissions dated 02.11.2020 filed by SO(RTI) & CAPIO were taken on record.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the appellant, vide his RTI application in question, has sought information pertaining to the LDCE Exam for AAO - 2018 dated 01.10.2018 which has already been cleared by the appellant and due promotion has also been awarded to him. Nonetheless, the appellant is seeking his answer sheets and answer key on the pretext that he received 4-5 marks less than expected in his objective exam. In this regard, a reference is made to Para 11 of the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 dated 09.08.2011wherein it was held that:
"11. The definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the RTI Act refers to any material in any form which includes records, documents, opinions, Page 4 of 8 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/637380 papers among several other enumerated items. The term 'record' is defined in section 2(i) of the said Act as including any document, manuscript or file among others. When a candidate participates in an examination and writes his answers in an answer-book and submits it to the examining body for evaluation and declaration of the result, the answer-book is a document or record. When the answer-book is evaluated by an examiner appointed by the examining body, the evaluated answer-book becomes a record containing the 'opinion' of the examiner. Therefore the evaluated answer- book is also an 'information' under the RTI Act."
It was furthermore stated in para 14 of the above mentioned judgement that:
"The examining bodies contend that the evaluated answer-books are exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, as they are 'information' held in its fiduciary relationship. They fairly conceded that evaluated answer-books will not fall under any other exemptions in sub section (1) of section 8. Every examinee will have the right to access his evaluated answer-books, by either inspecting them or take certified copies thereof, unless the evaluated answer-books are found to be exempted under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act."
In light of the foregoing, the Commission acknowledges the appellant's right to obtain his own answer script within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
A reference is further made to the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. in C.A. No. (5)/6159-6162 of 2013 in context of disclosure of Civil Service Examinations marks under the RTI:
Page 5 of 8CIC/POSTS/A/2018/637380 "(8) The problems in showing evaluated answer sheets in the UPSC Civil Services Examination are recorded in Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar v.
UPSC. From the counter affidavit in the said case, following extract was referred to:
"(B) Problems in showing evaluated answer books to candidates.--(i) Final awards subsume earlier stages of evaluation. Disclosing answer books would reveal intermediate stages too, including the so-called 'raw marks' which would have negative implications for the integrity of the examination system, as detailed in Section (C) below.
(ii) The evaluation process involves several stages. .......
(v) With the disclosure of evaluated answer books, the danger of coaching institutes collecting copies of these from candidates (after perhaps encouraging/inducing them to apply for copies of their answer books under the RTI Act) is real, with all its attendant implications. ......
(viii) UPSC is now able to get some of the best teachers and scholars in the country to be associated in its evaluation work. An important reason for this is no doubt the assurance of their anonymity, for which the Commission goes to great lengths. Once disclosure of answer books starts and the inevitable challenges (including litigation) from disappointed candidates starts, it is only a matter of time before these examiners who would be called upon to explain their assessment/award, decline to accept further assignments from the Commission....
(10) Weighing the need for transparency and accountability on the one hand and requirement of optimum use of fiscal resources and Page 6 of 8 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/637380 confidentiality of sensitive information on the other, we are of the view that information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically. Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing."
From the above, it cannot be denied that the facts of UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar are distinct from those in the present case. This Commission, therefore, endorses the submissions made by the appellant and observes that a departmental exam cannot be placed at the same footing as Civil Services Exams.
However, it is also noted that as per the respondent, the selection process of the aforesaid examination has not reached finality due to multiple litigations. But, on the other hand, the appellant has already been selected and offered due promotion. The Commission, therefore, considering the facts of the case and in light of the aforesaid judgements, directs the respondent to furnish the appellant his answer sheet, as sought vide point no. 1, after redacting the details of the examiner concerned, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
With respect to the answer key as sought vide point no. 2, the Commission observes that it would not be prudent to disclose the answer key pertaining to an examination the selection for which has not attained finality. The respondent is, therefore, directed to furnish a copy of the answer key to the appellant after the completion of process.
With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 7 of 8CIC/POSTS/A/2018/637380 Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 24.11.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) ADG, PA Admn, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110 001
2. The Central Public Information Officer Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110 001
3. Mr. Kumar Shashikant Page 8 of 8